What is Oppressive About Iranian/Saudi Hijab Requirements?

July 24, 2016

3 min read

Headline: Iranian (or Saudi) women call on Western tourists to violate hijab law to fight against oppression.

Question: What is oppressive about the hijab law?
Answer: It is oppressive because women can’t wear whatever they want. They don’t have the ability to choose.
Q: But is there any country in the world that allows people to wear whatever they want, i.e., unlimited choice?
A: Yes, Western countries of course!
Q: In these Western countries, can a person walk around in public with his genitals exposed?
A: Well no.
Q: So would requiring him to cover himself be oppressive according to your definition of oppression? Wouldn’t this mean that, in these countries, a person can’t always choose?
A: No, because exposing one’s genitals violates principles of decency and civility. It’s very different from exposing one’s hair.
Q: Who decided that exposing one particular area of the body (genitalia) violates decency and civility and exposing another part of the body (hair) is perfectly acceptable?
A: Uh, that’s just what is normal.
Q: Who decided that? What is that based on? Where does such an idea even come from?
A: Uh…
Q: Are you not aware of the hundreds of cultures and societies past and present that draw the lines differently, that have different conceptions of nudity, that have different standards of decency, etc.?
A: Uh…
Q: Do you have any principled basis to appeal to, to at least try to justify why Western standards should be the default around the world, even in places like Iran or Saudi or Afghanistan or…?
A: Uh…

You see, Muslims standards of public dress are based on Divine commands. What we believe should or should not be covered comes from what God has commanded, and insofar as we believe in God, we follow that guidance and strive to understand the larger cosmic significance and wisdom of those commands. Others might not believe in any of this, but at least Muslims have some reasoning that follows from higher principles.

But the Western standards of dress imposed on all are based on nothing more than cultural norms, and cultural norms have no principled basis. They ultimately boil down to, “This is just what we do,” or “This is what we found our forefathers doing and we just follow them because that’s what is comfortable.” There’s nothing more to it.

Yet, they are so confident and so militant when it comes to their views on dress, views that are ultimately based on nothing. But our views are based on the firmest foundation, yet we easily cave and throw it away for the sake of meaningless cliches about “choice” and “freedom,” cliches that fall apart with the slightest bit of scrutiny.

NB: The above does not constitute “the reason” a Muslimah should wear hijab. It is, rather, the response to a very specific and very common argument made against Islam and Muslim societies, namely that they are oppressive, irrational, and do not respect the freedom of choice.

Headline: Iranian (or Saudi) women call on Western tourists to violate hijab law to fight against oppression.Question:…

7 comments

What always comes to my mind regarding issues like these is that you cannot force people to follow certain Sharia laws. Yes, the constitution of a Muslim country should be based on Sharia, however when it comes to personal issues on should have the agency to choose. I’m sorry if my point is religiously invalid, but every other person quotes that ayah of the Quran which says let there be no compulsion in religion.
Also, I do not have words to thank you for launching this platform. I hope you make it more interactive. It is actually mentally exhausting to convince yourself that Islam is practical, perfect etc (especially being a woman) when you’re faced with new questions every now and then. That is when you realize how easy it is to slip and simply decide not to follow religion. And to be very honest we do not have access to scholars to be able to clear our misconceptions and get answers. May Allah puts lots of barakah in your work and bless you always. Thanks a lot.

Whether or not personal rulings should be enforced by an Islamic government is irrelevant here. A person wears clothing for the purpose of displaying him/herself to other people. Therefore, by definition, clothing is a societal affair that everyone bears the burden/benefit from, not just one person. The analogy for this is marriage: Homosexual marriage cannot be tolerated in an Islamic society because marriage, in so many ways, is an institution founded on social interactions, and is not restricted to personal dispensations.

“But the Western standards of dress imposed on all are based on nothing more than cultural norms, and cultural norms have no principled basis. They ultimately boil down to, “This is just what we do,” or “This is what we found our forefathers doing and we just follow them because that’s what is comfortable.” There’s nothing more to it.”

I disagree. If you look at what their forefathers were doing, they were dressing significantly more modestly and actually looked more like Muslims (see Victorian England, or babooshka’s of Eastern Europe).

Their dress is the expression of an ideology – the ideology of sexual liberation and hedonism. Indulge in your cardinal desires and get stuck in the hedonic treadmill. That is the true way to “pursue happiness.”

That is why they are so disturbed with they see people not doing this. The very existence of modest, Muslim women challenges their foundational beliefs about how they should orient their life and their entire being. “You mean hedonism is not the way to happiness? How dare you! Now I must either destroy you, ridicule you, belittle you, or else rethink my entire life purpose.”

This is also why they are trying to force their way of life (deen) upon others. But I do agree with you, that on the slightest of examinations the idea of hedonism (which is essentially what “freedom” amounts to) falls apart. The firmest foundations are those that stem from our Beloved Creator, tabaraaka wa ta’aalah.

Covering face and wearing glooves ( with black colours in both priestly dictator regimes in Saudi monarchy and war criminal regime in Iran) have absolutely nothing to do with Islam..but have everything to do with brduin customs and retroactive traditions. No where in the Qur’an do we find this blind fanaticism toward women. The Irony though is that many of the misled Muslims out there condemn ISIS’s understanding and interpretation of Islam however, they are strongly adherent to the same interpretation that they hold about “Hijab”.
When will these misled brothers and sisters realize that ISIS is a direct product of the same blind hardline and fanatical understanding of Islam.
When shall they realize that most reverts are victims of one-sided monomial view of Fiqh..which was heavily financed by Saudi regime for a long time..Shiekh Souhaib Webb spoke about this tragedy.

>They ultimately boil down to, “This is just what we do,” or “This is what we found our forefathers doing and we just follow them because that’s what is comfortable

I’m sorry, but any tradition that is practiced solely because it is a tradition is inherently evil and should be abolished. Any practice of your ancestors that does not have a real tangible benefit or justification is wrong by default.

My biggest concerns with the hijab are twofold. First that it is compulsory for a specific set of people. Male muslims have no such restrictions. There are no rules in place limiting men from exposing, say, their arm muscles or strong jawlines. Are not muslim men constantly tempting women to think lustful thoughts and anger Allah? Rules must be applied fairly and without prejudice or they stop being rules and start being oppression.

Secondly, the justifications I hear muslim men making for why women must remain covered. One of the most common is that if women are allowed to go around uncovered, men will be unable to stop themselves from raping them. That shows a weakness of the muslim male, not the female. If you need clothing to restrict muslim men from sinning and violating the most basic laws, then muslim men should be required to wear straitjackets at all times when in public. I would further argue that any man incapable of restraining himself in the presence of an uncovered or barely covered woman is not truly a man at all, but rather an unclean beast with no place in reasonable society. If they do not respect women as people, regardless of covering, they themselves are not people.

“One of the most common [reasons given for hijab by Muslims] is that if women are allowed to go around uncovered, men will be unable to stop themselves from raping them.”

I truly believe that the above is a nonsense and strawman. I personally, in my life, have never heard any Muslim man or woman say such a thing. The most simple reason for the hijab is that it is a commandment from God and His Messenger.

You said that if rules are not enforced uniformly on both genders, then it is oppression. Why then, as a man, am I forced to cover up MORE than women in western secular society? If I go to an office job interview in shorts or with my chest hair showing, I will not get the job. If my sister goes to the same job interview in a mini-skirt or a low-top, she will get brownie points for dressing down. Do you acknowledge that this is oppression in the West?

Men and women are different, this is why there are different clothing regulations for them in every society, including western secular society. This is why there is a “men’s clothing” section and a “women’s clothing” section in every department store in the West. As far as the parts of the body that need covering, western secular society has just got that backwards. Islam recognizes that commercial billboards will not use my (male) legs and chest to sell Coca Cola, cars, or travel websites; they will use female legs and chest and hair. So Islam turns the whole covering thing upside down. Instead of men needing to cover more and women needing to expose more, it turns it upside down.